memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009
About: To accommodate the influx of discussion on the pending feature film, older discussions for this talk page can be found in the 2006, 2007 and (through June) 2008 archives. Revamped ENT I have a composite shot of the saucer I asked someone to make for me from the trailer. It shows the entire forward section of the saucer. Could it possibly be included in the article? --WTRiker 00:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) :I don't see why not. I would upload it as a new version of this image, though. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC) This is the pic . It is not as wide, but gives more vertical detail. Whaddya think? --WTRiker 20:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC) :That looks fine. Go ahead and re-upload it as a new version of this image and I'll delete the one linked here. Or you can just replace the one in the article with the composite and I'll delete the replaced image later. Your choice. :) --From Andoria with Love 16:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC) I'll keep this one and dump the old one. I'm still slightly on the "new" side of wiki. I've used them, but don't edit that often. Could you tell me how to delete it? Thanks for the help.--WTRiker 17:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC) :I'm afraid an administrator will have to delete the old image. Go ahead and replace the image in the article with the composite shot and I'll delete the old image. --From Andoria with Love 17:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Already done. --WTRiker 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC) :And the old image has been deleted. All is now right in the universe. :-D --From Andoria with Love 20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC) Is Nero a Romulan? It has been assumed that the character of Nero is a Romulan. The poster released at San Diego Comic Con shows the character and he doesn't look like any Romulan we have seen before. A recent interview by E! with Clifton Collins Jr. (General Ayel) indicates that Nero is a Romulan. Collins said, "Me and Eric Bana are the new Romulans." http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/marc_malkin/b23815_star_trek_scoop_romulan_speaks.html However, there is an erlier interview with writer Alex Kurtzman by UGO. Kurtzman is asked what is going on with Nero's ear in the San Diego Comic Con poster. Kurtzman responds, “Nero isn’t necessarily a Romulan... It’s all part of the plot.” http://movieblog.ugo.com/index.php/movieblog/more/fear_your_blackberry_eagle_eye_preview/ To me, this indicates that Nero's character may not be Romulan as we know it. There could be many possibilities. He could be Romulan as much as Shinzon is Reman I attempted to change the article to indicate this, but it was changed to say that it is confirmed that Nero is a Romulan. I think it is too early to confirm that he is a Romulan. He may or may not be. Any thoughts? :Take a look at the Nero promo shot here. Take a good look at his chin tattoo. Then jump over to this. See a resemblance? Jpers36 20:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC) ::Besides, we have countless reports and interviews of actors, etc. stating Nero is, in fact, a Romulan. Kurtzman says Nero "isn't necessarily a Romulan..." in other words, he's a Romulan, but Kurtzman doesn't want to admit that to the public as a fact. Most likely, what was meant is that Nero isn't like the other Romulans we know. For the record, Nero's ear as seen on the posters looks like it has been either burned or chewed off, and it was revealed long ago that none of the Romulans in the film will have cranial ridges. Long story short: yes, he is a Romulan, just maybe not the kind of Romulan we're used to seeing. It doesn't get more concrete than the actors saying "we are Romulans." --From Andoria with Love 00:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Just released!: new pictures Someone want to add a mention and/or pictures as seen here USS Kelvin at TrekMovie.com and New images at TrekMovie.com? --[[User:WTRiker|WTRiker] 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)] : I had added them and they were removed - Nx1701g 04:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC) ::Mentioning them is one thing, but we cannot have any images from the actual film on this site until the film is released as it violates the spoiler policy. Also, we do not have permission to use those specific images as they were given exclusively to those official sites and provided by Industrial Light & Magic. --From Andoria with Love 05:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC) :::Well then how DO YOU get permission? Contact ILM and ask them to send me a written permission? So we are an encyclopedia of some sorts right? It is not like we are using these images for profit or to sell. Also, how does it work with images of cast members (in universe or not) that we find on the internet and would like to add to a specific article? Sometimes tracking-back to find out who originally took the picture etc is hard to do. I got tons of images but hell if i know who holds copyright. How exactly does it work. It cant possibly be that complicated. – Distantlycharmed 16:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Romulan appearance :from talk:Romulan According to TrekMovie.com, it is "confirmed that the Romulans in the new Star Trek do NOT have the extra forehead ridges seen in the TNG era". Should this fact be added to the Physiology section, as at the moment it states that "most Romulans have two brow ridges above the bridge of their nose, forming a V-shape on the forehead. However, a minority of Romulans lack these ridges, making them outwardly indistinguishable from Vulcans". As more Romulans are seen browless, including all in the upcoming film, should this be changed in the article? CaptainRedHook 20:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC) :Nothing on the new movie should go in this article, background or otherwise, until after the movie comes out. This is per our Memory Alpha:Spoiler policy. The only pages that should have content on the movie are the pages devoted to that movie, namely . --OuroborosCobra talk 20:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC) :Ah... sorry everyone. CaptainRedHook 02:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC) USS Kelvin :from talk:Nacelle... From the wallpapers that are being available from promotional sites such as intel, it's now clear that the USS Kelvin only has one Nacelle - should it get a mention here? -- 15:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC) :Seeing as there is no USS Kelvin in canon, I would say no. Also, promotional sites such as that aren't considered canon either. Sorry. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC) :: Better yet, read the spoiler policy. --Alan 15:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC) Website updated The website has been updated with new posters and other stuff, if someone wants to add it to the article. -- 12:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Spoiler proposal I've made a suggestion about dealing with spoilers from the film in in-universe articles here; people who are following the film's production and spoilers are welcome to chime in (and shoot the proposal down if you want). —Josiah Rowe 22:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Certain aliens in canon I'm not sure where else to ask this. I've heard from other sites that having Romulans in the movie is against canon, since it is (supposedly) established that the Federation doesn't encounter Romulans until later. However, I can't find any evidence of that. Anyone know if this is accurate? — 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC) :The main events of the movie takes place before the events of , when the Federation had their first encounter with the Romulans in over a century in addition to first learning what Romulans look like. The movie seems to be contradicting this by having the Federation not only encounter Romulans a few years prior to that episode but also having them come face-to-face with them. --From Andoria with Love 15:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Will the in-universe material from this film... be placed in Memory Alpha or Memory Beta? Wratched 13:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC) :When the movie comes out then it will be placed here. — Morder 14:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC) ::It will be an aired movie won't it? :) I'm sure that MB will add the information too though, supplementing it with the comic book series leading up to the movie's release, and all. -- sulfur 15:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC) :::it's like Dr Who, the new film is a reboot so will steal from the old and restart. It should not be in Memory Alpha in my view as it isn't the same cannon, but a whole new one. Lt.Lovett 20:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::::Wait, what? Where does it say it's a reboot? Alternate timeline caused by time travel is what I read. And I can't figure out what reboot in Doctor Who you're talking about either. The new series was certainly not a reboot. You mean the non-canon films based on early serials? 07:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC) Get ready Just get ready for this. It really appears as some of the uniforms in the new film will be original series 2266 era (gold/red/blue). But wait...how will this be explained that the movie is actually set during the pilot uniform era (tan/brown/blue). I hope we will not be dealing with one of these "just pretend it didnt happen" things. I for one was REALLY looking forward to seeing pilot era uniforms, perhaps with some higher ranking insignia than just the one stripe we saw in the "The Cage" and the two in "No Man Has Gone". Regardless, this might cause us to have to seriously revamp the uniform and insignia articles. I guess we will see...in about 7 months. -FC 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :Here's an idea: let's not talk about it until we need to, say around . We'll deal with it then, because we can't deal with it now (see site notice -- that includes talk pages, or at least it should). Also, please keep in mind that talk pages are to be used only to discuss the quality of the page, not for idle chit-chat on what will be in the movie. --From Andoria with Love 03:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Here's an idea too...LIGHTIN' UP! :-) I know all about the site notice and would never add anything to an actual article about this. But it is without a doubt going to cause a problem since the film will apparently contradict uniform continuity...or uniform uniforimity...or something like that.... -FC 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :I'm as lit up as anyone here. :) The fact of the matter is this is, like, the hundredth discussion expressing concern over some canon issues from the movie and the response will always be the same until May 8th: we will worry about it then, because we can't worry about it now since we just don't have enough concrete evidence as to not only what will change but why it will be changed. This is also the upteenth time a discussion like this has been brought up on a talk page which these pages are, in fact, not for this sort of discussion. They are to help improve the quality and content of the article, not to alert people as to the impending doom of their beloved canon because the uniforms are the wrong style. (By the way, you're worried about the uniforms? Have you seen the bridge?) So, yah, I was lightened up about a hundred posts ago dealing with the same canon doomsday scenarios. That light has dimmed since then – it's just become monotonous. The movie doesn't come out for another five and a half months. Let's not concern ourselves over something before we know if we should be concerned about it, mmkay? :) --From Andoria with Love 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Sounds good to me, man. In fairness, perhaps this whole posting should be put on the uniform page so it can be referenced in May when it does in fact become an issue (which it will). Until then, I'll keep all opinions about the film to myself. BTW- I'm wearing MY uniform (gold shirt with Captain stripes) the opening night of the movie. Have a great day! -FC 19:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC) ::I don't see what the problem is, the movie takes place between Pike's missions and Kirk's, there's approximately 10 years that have never been seen before so we don't know what happened. ::I myself was eager to see what they would do with the fact Uhura was a yellow-shirt and Sulu was the botanist but these can all be explained anyways-just use your imagination. Not long to go now anyways! Image of the new Enterprise Greetings. I'm inexperienced with posting on wiki's so I thought it might be best to ask here before I go doing anything hasty. Although I read the spoiler policy, I am still unsure. There is a certain image of the new Enterprise on a certain website, can the image or link be posted here? I've noticed that screen captures of it have been posted, but I don't want to assume. If anyone could answer this it would be appreciated. -Cheers Strangedays 06:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC) :No. No spoilers are allowed on memory alpha. — Morder 06:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC) I noticed in a previous entry that linking to them was ok, but posting them was not. (It was the "Just Released" entry) Strangedays 06:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) :If you do - make sure it's in a forum - with appropriate warnings but it's a good idea not to post them at all. Though administrators will probably undo or remove any spoilers since we don't post them here at all... Guess I should point you here to explain Memory Alpha's policies. — Morder 06:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Alright then. Seems to contradict what I found above, but better safe that sorry, right? Besides, it wasn't that hard to find in the first place. Thanks for the feed back Morder. -Cheers. Strangedays 07:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) ::Short answer is... nothing in the new movie is actually canon until the movie is actually released. As such, since it's not canon... we can't use it here. :) -- sulfur 13:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC) :::Strangedays: Screen captures from the movie itself are not allowed. The only screen capture we have of the movie's Enterprise is from the teaser trailer, and that's only because that teaser is a product in and of itself; it showed no actual scenes from the movie. --From Andoria with Love 19:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Sure thing! But could someone explain why the links to the pics of the cast on set and in costume are ok? (Again I reference the "Just Released" entry). Strangedays 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC) :::A link to pictures is fine because the pictures in those links are not on the actual site; we are giving readers the option to look at the images rather than forcing them to see them. --From Andoria with Love 08:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Well, thank you all for the clarification. Here's the link if you want to see it. (Don't click if you want to be surprised come May!) AND HERE SHE IS! (SPOILER ALERT!) Strangedays 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC) :::Aye, I saw that when they first released it. She actually looks much better in the trailer. I think that image was selected just to cause controversy and so people watching the trailer will be much more impressed and awed. And I think it worked. :) --From Andoria with Love 18:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ::::I think I'm just going to go shoot myself right now. The producers are apparently imagining that just didnt happen. Can't wait until May. -FC 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Holodeck get out? A rumor in a free London paper is that the film has tested so badly with fans (which is why it has been left back) that "a new ending is being shot with 'Star Trek: Voyager actor' Robert Duncan McNeil as a Holodeck programmer" (London Metro) this would fit with the future Paris writing holonovels. Anyone else know about this, or is this the same ending with Nimmoy's Spoc? The piece also suggested the film will get on a limited release in the UK and only IMAX in London (as happened with 'Fly Me to the Moon'). Lt.Lovett 20:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC) :I can tell you now that the rumor is false. For one thing, the four scenes that were screened for the press were very well received, for the most part. Also, there are currently no plans to shoot any additional scenes or to re-shoot any of the scenes that have already been filmed. The filmmakers and Paramount are very happy with the product, as is. In addition, if there were going to be an alteration of some sort (which there won't be, I assure you), it would be a very stupid idea to incorporate an actor from the one Trek series which the majority of fans dislike the most. It will also be pretty stupid because this movie is being made for the mainstream, who won't know who the heck Tom Paris is. For the record, though, this "new ending" is strangely reminiscent of the plot for ; in other words, I smell a hoax. With all that in mind, I can assure you there will be very few theaters in the UK, including London, that will not be playing Star Trek when it opens there on May 8th. Hope that helps! :) --From Andoria with Love 21:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC) ::As a long time Trek fan, I refuse to watch this movie, they should have never used new actors to portray the original Enterprise cast, let alone respecting the canon history of Star Trek. -- 07:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC) :::This isn't the place to voice your dissatisfaction with Trek's direction.— Vince47 07:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC) :70.75.210.1: As an addendum to Vince47's reply, see for more info on what talk pages are used for. In addition to this not being the place for such comments, the fact of the matter is... nobody cares. If you want to let close-mindedness and fear of change get in the way of watching a potentially good movie, that's your call. But we really could care less. Sorry, mate, just stating facts. --From Andoria with Love 15:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC) POV treatment on MA :For the spoiler-rich precursor to the discussion below, see Talk:Star Trek (film)/Archive 2009. :For the spoiler-free redacted version of the complete original discussion, see User:TribbleFurSuit/Redaction of Talk:Star Trek (film). POV treatment on MA (minimal spoilers) :Like the above discussion, just without major plot points being spoiled! :( OK, one hopefully minor spoiler on top: The new movie will, apparently, show... . . . . . . . . . . . HERE IT COMES: alternate universe events. Now that this is out of the way - I don't want to be spoiled too much about the new movie, but I (and I'm sure others as well) would like to participate in a discussion that concerns some basic MA policy decisions. I only scanned the above discussion, because I was pretty much spoiled in the first line of it, and didn't want to be spoiled further. What I saw, though, was the fact that the whole discussion seemed to be between just two participants - which isn't much if this indeed is about future policy. So, can the above discussion be rephrased here, without giving any more spoilers than the one I gave at the top of this discussion? If yes, then please do so that we can participate - if no, then this problem will probably have to wait until the movie is out in May. -- Cid Highwind 14:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :I will give it a shot. :) Basically, according to co-writer/exec producer Bob Orci, the events of the new film take place in an alternate timeline. However, he argues that, based on the theory of quantum mechanics, the existence of this new timeline does not mean the old timeline is wiped out. In fact, some of the things which happen in this timeline will be no different than what happens in the old timeline, or so Orci argues. Nonetheless, it does present an alternate canon history of events. The question was how to include those events on Memory Alpha. One way to do it is to separate articles based on timelines (i.e. Timeline A and Timeline B), but this option was not met with much enthusiasm. It was argued that, even though we have knowledge of alternate timelines, we "live" within one timeline, and that timeline takes precedence over the others. This is where a possible tweak in policy came in; I optioned to change the policy to say we can "see" or "live" in alternate universes, as we seem to be doing with the mirror universe. I don't think this suggestion was met with much enthusiasm, either, so I then suggested we treat this new, parallel timeline as we treat mirror universe information, which would include, I assume, separate articles for the alternate Kirk, Spock, etc. Or maybe just a separate section within the already-existing articles, not sure. In any case, this seems to be the preferred choice, but now we have to come up with a catchy name for the timeline, ala "mirror universe." That's about it, I think. If there was any other policy-changing discussion, I'm not aware of it. --From Andoria with Love 15:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::I have been imagining that just as soon as the movie opens and spoilerfree people see it, all of the above will be read and commented upon before any decisions are made. We could parapharase everything again down here (lots of work), I guess, or re-post it all down here in redacted form (less work). Anybody want that? --TribbleFurSuit 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::OK, there's a spoiler-redacted version of the above 40KB discussion here. Shall we archive the above so that this is the only place this is discussed anymore? --TribbleFurSuit 21:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::: Archived the old discussion, where the link says I sent it. --Alan 21:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC) ::: Also, can this be used in any way as an example? --Alan 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC) :::: I for one was enthusiastic about the clear timeline A and B seggregation suggestion. So I proposed the idea of writing about the new stuff in new articles in the way as if it was the one and only real thing and add into that article a little box similar to the real world pov-box that would state: "This article is written from the timeline B (we'll make up a better name later) point of view". To clarify, instead of writing it into the article text "In the timeline B, this type of communicator was used by Starfleet officers" we write "This type of communicator was used by Starfleet officers." and add the little box. --Pseudohuman 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC) :::::I'm not a regular here, and not nearly as knowledgeable in Trek lore as most of you, but for what it's worth, I support creating separate articles for the new timeline, like is already done with the mirror universe (as User:Shran said). We use a similar method on the Wikia I founded, The Hardy Boys Wiki for the different continuities, and it seems to work quite well. WHLfan (talk to me!) 06:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Wow, that's bad... You're right, we can't really pretend that "everything is the same" if, this time, even the producers admit that it isn't - and deliberately created their story to not be... this means, we need some sort of separation. However, moving 700+ hours of continuity to the "alternate universe" while keeping 2 hours of continuity as the "main timeline" would be nothing more than a big "Fuck you all!" statement to everyone who has seen Trek in the last 40 years - and I care a little more about those than about the sentiment of current producers. So, unless much more than just a single movie is part of that timeline, it should be this tiny fragment of Trek lore that gets the "alternate" treatment, not the vast majority. Regarding the "mirror universe" comparison. Keep in mind that we only created separate articles if there was "enough" information about each, and otherwise kept all information in separate sections of a single article - or did that change at some point? --Cid Highwind 13:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :I was always under the impression that it was the movie timeline we would be treating as "alternate," not the 700+ hours of history that came before it. As for creating articles or giving them separate sections, we can do the same thing with information from the new movie. For example, if there's enough info on an alternate pre-existing character, we can create a page for that alternate character. If there isn't, then we just add it as a section or sentence on the pre-existing character's page. --From Andoria with Love 13:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC) ::Amen, brother. P.S. "not the 700+ hours of history that came before" [and '''especially after]' ''"it" --TribbleFurSuit 16:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC) :Heh, well, I meant the 700+ hours that came before this film, not in-universe history. :) --From Andoria with Love 12:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ::I know. To me, I felt it worth reiterating here (since it's only in the archives so far). The fact that there's in-universe history that came after and that we have so much of it is the important point. Latest and greatest: Latest canon events, greatest canon volume. Anyway I guess it's not 700 hours from that perspective, it's many many centuries. --TribbleFurSuit 14:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :::: I don't think the "two timelines can be equal main timelines"-approach should be dismissed as an unthinkable impossibility, only because it's not in the policy books yet. I think we would be lagging behind the times if we continue with the way we do things now by giving the abramsverse only the "mirror universe treatment" by weighing which main timeline has the most onscreen hours behind it. --Pseudohuman 14:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC) ::Not to be argumentative with you, PH, but just to describe my own opinion regarding "the 'two timelines can be equal main timelines'-approach", I'll say: We're already doing something that works for the Mirror Universe, which has more completed productions, more onscreen hours and more in-universe canon history than STXI and its hypothetical sequels. Two universes are not equal main universes, and in my opinion there's even less reason to attempt to treat a timeline as equal than there would be to consider a parallel universe as equal/internally consistent. The fact that Mirror Spock and Our Spock can meet each other makes the Mirror Universe more like "two universes can be equal main universes", or at least can be consistent within one of the universes, but that Orci/Kurtzman ******** and our ******** can not, makes that less like two realities that can be treated as equal and self-consistent, in-universe. Neverminding the previous Talk: and Orci's blab about how alternate timelines and parallel universes are the same thing, the truth is, they're different, based on canon so far. Timelines can be created/destroyed/erased/re-set, while parallel universes just co-exist and occasionally interact with each other. (OK, maybe Orci/Kurtzman ******** and our ******** could meet, if Braxton came along and made it so, or something... but it doesn't quite change the point I'm making.) So, you're right, the "rule book" currently requires that we take an in-universe perspective to MA.org, and in my opinion we have to pick which of many possible canon universes/timelines/whatever our perspective is in. That our archive can see into other univserses/timelines/whatever is already a given. The idea that our one archive could actually be in more than one universe/timeline/whatever would be so difficult that, if we decide that at least one other timeline/universe/whatever is going to be treated just as much "main" as another one, the only sensible thing would be to just revoke the entire conceept of MA.org having an in-universe POV. Personally, I fully expect that an Abramsverse version of MA will get started, kind of like how there's the Mirror Universe version of Memory Alpha. That would satisfy having an in-universe POV for the other universe/timeline/whatever. But for MA.org/en, rejecting the in-universe POV or changing it so that an arbitrary "alternate" POV is is also in-universe and "primary" would be so disruptive that we'd never ever get all our articles cleaned up to match such a POV change. ::All in good spirits, here, those are my opinions. Don't get me wrong: I'm not somebody who wants to make Abramsverse "less canon". The Abramsverse will be fully canon. I just think that MA.org/en doesn't have any choice but to treat it the same way (but with a certain emphasis) in which we have treated other alternative timelines/universes/whatever. They're canon too. To give Abramsverse the "Mirror Universe treatment" would elevate it above all but one of the other dozens of parallel realities that exist in canon, so, that actually would be quite a powerful validation. Cheers, --TribbleFurSuit 15:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC) :::: I suppose my point is that the main timeline is really only the main timeline because, as viewers of the show, we can draw a line from the beginning of Ent to the end of Voy and call it a whole continuity no matter how many in-universe temporal reboots it contains. While there is such a singular continuity it makes sense to have our MA POV in the future end of that continuity because it is the path the viewers are led along. STXI is the first time trek has decided to diverge into a new continuity that is supposed to be treated as a main timeline of its own from the viewer perspective. So the ballgame has changed. The mirror universe nor any other parallel universe so far was never intended to be a new continuity in that sense. Main timeline is still the main timeline in the sense that it is a whole continuity. The abramsverse is by nature a tangent-continuity. But indeed all in good spirits, there is something positive in the non-disruptive "Mirror universe treatment"-approach too because it keeps the POV intact and the database remains singular. I just think MA should reflect the producers intent and join the club of other wikis that have multiple continuities (in our own way) because that is what we have now too. --Pseudohuman 11:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC) :::: BTW. The line by Daniels in : "This species has technology which allows them to examine alternate timelines" Might be taken as a canonical confirmation that all alternate timelines remain in existance as parallel quantum realities. It's a bit vague but still, if the new film offers no such confirmation and all we have is the producers intent again. This might be as good as it gets. :) --Pseudohuman 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC) :::::Holy sh*# I cant believe i just read this...arggh. – Distantlycharmed 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Tarsus IV: in or not? I was curious if there has been any leaks at all as to whether or not Kirk's time on Tarsus IV is depicted in the new film. I'm sure we all have seen the trailer by now which depicts a childhood age Kirk. The age might match when he should have been on Tarsus. Thoughts? Thanks. -FC 14:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC) :The film does not involve Kirk's time on Tarsus IV; in fact, this Kirk probably never went to Tarsus IV. Remember that this is not 100% the Kirk from the original series and films. The new film depicts an alternate history for Kirk than the one we know. --From Andoria with Love Horrible This file is REALLY hard to read with all the citations in there. I propose hiding them or something. Franchise Reboot? Can someone please clarify whether this is actually a total reboot of the franchise or not? (i.e. is it effectively based in another universe to the rest of star trek as we know it so far?) -- 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)